341–350 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they weren't not going to, given that their mission is to archive all cultural content, by hook or by crook.
Archiving it and publishing it are different things. More importantly, they may sabotage their mission: If Spotify shuts them down, their exiting archives and especially future archives may be effectively lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linking to illegal services can be illegal, that’s why. What is illegal in one country can be illegal everywhere. I don't remember Wikipedia removing LGBTIAQ++ articles just because that's illegal in Iran. If a government thinks Wikipedia is illegal in their country, they can force local ISP providers to block it, but it's not Wikipedia's responsibility [1] to censor itself. [1] at least should not be
The Wikimedia Foundation is a US corporation. There are national chapters in some other countries, which are corporations in the respective country. The internet isn't the Wild West; websites are subject to the laws of the countries they operate in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It turned out I hardly can find an artist I recognize I've heard of 9 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 at https://chartmasters.org/most-monthly-listeners-on-spotify/ You might not listen, but surely you have heard of Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay and of course Christmas Staples of Mariah Carey and Wham?
The funny thing is, since the advent of streaming I no longer listen to the radio. I listen to new music, but little pop music, and I have never heard a single track from Swift, Bieber, Grande or Sheeran. Coldplay is the only act I like on that list, and the streaming services are pretty good at only playing what I like. If they were pre-streaming artists I probably would have heard a lot of their catalog because rad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally outline by Tor Project team, if you care to even read from official sources.
This here response continues to stretch "pedantic correction" to new levels. What's "literally outlined" I'd guess is that the utility of the Tor network increases with adoption which nobody ever doubted. What is discard is the tenuous over-stretched argument in this thread regarding fears of legality, that went like this: GP: Using Tor browser and running a Tor node are different things, by using the browser you are…
Is this an abuse of the ServerHold status? Was this the same mechanism used to delist a Gaza video archive recently? > This status code is set by your domain's Registry Operator. Your domain is not activated in the DNS. > If you provided delegation information (name servers), this status may indicate an issue with your domain that needs resolution. If so, you should contact your registrar to request more information.…
Yes. Genocide.live is under clientHold status by namecheap and they are trying to transfer it out.
https://www.whois.com/whois/genocide.live
(btw, that is an excellent website I didn't know about)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freenet is promising but it's not even fully done. Experimental stage. I am also skeptic of their more usage of LLM generated code these days.
Freenet (aka Hyphanet) is 25 years old... it's been "stable" for decades. Biggest problem is that content is sort-of hosted locally and considering how much child porn and other criminal content is in its darker corners tha can be risky. It's also incredibly slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? That's the laziest argument against IPFS. Bind it on one interface or just use a VM.
Defaults absolutely matter. And no, I dont my whole internal network enumerable because of 'convenience'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That line will haunt Musk to the end of his days. That was a very sexy thing to say, but quite a different beast when it is time to walk the talk. Musk has buckled, talking the walk instead.
he's a psychopath like the rest of them rich and powerful. he'll say anything that will get him more wealth and influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In UK there is simply no such status as "non-profit" Incorrect. ‐-------- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/non-prof... noun [ C ] uk /ˌnɒnˈprɒf.ɪt/ us /ˌnɑːnˈprɑː.fɪt/ (also not-for-profit) an organization whose aim is to make money for a social or political purpose or to provide a service that people need, rather than to make a profit (Definition of non-profit from the Cambridge Advanced Learner…
I'm not entirely sure what this sort of pedantry is meant to accomplish. Congratulations on being technically correct, I suppose? Both I and GP have pointed out the crux of the matter, and you are ignoring it.
"They're not 'a' non-profit".
> and you are ignoring it.
No. I am challenging it.
I've seen no evidence either way and so far it seems nor have you. So let's wait and see.